Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

where is the flag on the moon?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    stewiegriffin08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 262 ✭✭stewiegriffin08


    "The footage of Neil Armstrong's "one small step" is considered among the most important artefacts of the 20th century but the original NASA tapes have been mislaid somewhere in the US." - quote

    come off it.... mislaid?? MISLAID? :eek: Tis is the moon landing footage were talking about.... the biggest achievment of man kind!!! you think by now a 18 year old like myself would be sick of looking at the footage... infact.. I never saw the moon landing footage... I never got the chance... where is it?? you think it would be replayed on tv over and over... the start of rte new or something.... The moon :rolleyes:

    pure bollix :P


  • Options
    #33
    Tony Broke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Tony Broke


    King Mob wrote: »
    Do the math, it isn't.
    Just because you personally don't understand something does mean there's a conspiracy.

    I didnt say anything about a conspiracy Mob, I believe 100% we went to the moon.Its just that Hubble can find objects in space that have appeared out of nowhere 11 billion light-years away and it cant see anything worthwhile on the moon.

    My question has been answered and the math probably does work out, but im still amazed eg pics of saturn taken by Hubble :D


  • Options
    #34
    Tony Broke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Tony Broke


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you not see the scale on the bottom of the picture?
    That galaxy is about 100,000 lightyears across.
    That's pretty big.

    I love this vid.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw


  • Options
    #35
    Tony Broke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Tony Broke


    axer wrote: »
    It is the same math that I linked to earlier. As King Mob pointed out, the galaxies are very very big and the stars are very bright and also very big but you are looking for detail down to two feet or so on something that is 221,000 miles away. The image of that galaxy is a very distant image, it does not show any detail of anything inside of it.

    So Hubble can only detect them,but it can't really see them?


  • Options
    #36
    Tony Broke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭Tony Broke


    But yet we can take a pic of Nebula with a sun-like star, three thousand light-years from Earth?

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070513.html

    catseye2_hst.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Tony Broke wrote: »
    But yet we can take a pic of Nebula with a sun-like star, three thousand light-years from Earth?

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070513.html

    Yea because the nebula and star are huge and very bright.
    It's not a difficult concept to grasp.


  • Options
    #38
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    bonkey wrote: »
    As that video shows, they had a vertical and a horizontal support.

    If you want to call that a frame, then I guess you could equally call a flag-pole a frame.

    Generally speaking, a frame encloses something. 2-of-4 sides isn't a frame.

    ETA - I'd also add that the "abuse" levelled at you from Diogenes was from the comment that the flag was not made from traditional cloth. The flag was made from cloth. You subsequently got to the notion that there was a wire frame inside the flag. There wasn't. There was a rigid horizontal support at the top of the flag.

    Pedantic Bonkey, pedantic... It's a wire frame/support inside the flag. I feel so liberated. :D


  • Options
    #39
    scumbag sqpants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭scumbag sqpants


    There are more flags than just the one US flag, don't China, Russia and now India also have their respective colours on the moon?


  • Options
    #40
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    scumbag sqpants wrote: »
    There are more flags than just the one US flag, don't China, Russia and now India also have their respective colours on the moon?

    Only the US have ever landed men on the moon, they rest have satellites orbiting the moon.


  • Options
    #41
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    I thought the Russians had landed at least two misions on the surface?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    OK so it appears thet the Ruskies only sent a Rover, not a person :)


  • Options
    #43
    Four-Too
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Four-Too


    The moon landing was a hoax made to cheat the taxpayer out of money - they never landed there. Youtube has more videos:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX7cnzvD8OM

    and....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbd6KXHql0o

    Who do you believe, the lying corporate media and politicans of this World, or this man?!


  • Options
    #44
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Four-Too wrote: »
    The moon landing was a hoax made to cheat the taxpayer out of money - they never landed there. Youtube has more videos:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX7cnzvD8OM

    and....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbd6KXHql0o

    Who do you believe, the lying corporate media and politicans of this World, or this man?!
    One of the many religious scam artists of the world?

    Bet he's got tons of hard empirical evidence of a hoax.


  • Options
    #45
    Cunning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭Cunning


    massive doses of solar radiation eats the flag.

    there should be remnants of the moon buggy though(metal bits maybe). but it would be quite hard to spot.
    the full moon is a disc of about 9.5 millon square kilometers
    or about 9500 billion square meters (9478716000000m^2) [9.5 by 10^12]
    the moon buggy might be 2 sqare meters

    a rugby pitch is about 10,000 square meters
    so it'd be like looking for something of size one billionth of a meter square on a rugby pitch (something 32micronsx32microns) thats pretty hard to find!
    thats something smaller than the tip of a human hair (about 80 microns across).
    i'm pretty sure neil armstrong was on the moon


    also of course we've been to space
    how else do you explain hubble telescope imagry
    gps and satellite communications etc etc etc


  • Options
    #46
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    their talking about going back in 2017 i think.They will defenitly be able to fake it properly this time;)


  • Options
    #47
    bmcgov86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭bmcgov86


    i reckon the flag is on the flagpole.more than likely. unless the man on the moon robbed it.


  • Options
    #48
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Cunning wrote: »


    also of course we've been to space
    how else do you explain hubble telescope imagry
    gps and satellite communications etc etc etc


    clearly it's a jewish trick to keep us fixated on the stars while they rob us blind with the WTO.


  • Options
    #49
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    Mordeth wrote: »
    clearly it's a jewish trick to keep us fixated on the stars while they rob us blind with the WTO.

    Mordeth your Jewish jokes are not funny, or ironic, or whatever it is you are trying to be... If you cannot contribute anything, why do you continue to spam this forum?


  • Options
    #50
    redout
    Registered Users Posts: 11,435 ✭✭✭✭redout


    There is a great documentary called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which is well worth a look. Raises some interesting questions especially the earth through the window.


  • Options
    #51
    jhegarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    Simple test for moon landings.

    View top-budget 1969 blockbuster films.

    Notice special effects and laugh at how fake they look.

    Now watch moon landings , looks real.

    I am sure they could have faked it (to a standard we would believe today) from 1990 on , but not in 69.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    redout wrote: »
    There is a great documentary called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which is well worth a look. Raises some interesting questions especially the earth through the window.

    What sort of interesting questions?

    I ask because wvery "interesting" question I've seen on the topic generally relies on misinformation or flawed reasoning. I'd be really interested in actually finding a real interesting question.


  • Options
    #53
    BravoSierra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 84 ✭✭BravoSierra


    espinolman wrote: »
    The U.S. did go to the moon, in an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

    Que?


  • Options
    #54
    monkeytronics
    Closed Accounts Posts: 191 ✭✭monkeytronics


    I don't know much about the moon landing or the conspiracy theories surrounding same. But having read this thread I get the impression that the armstrong et al landing of the 60s has been the onlt time humans have visited the surface of the moon.

    If that is the case, why so? It seems odd that they could pull off this great achievement some 40 years ago but no one has bothered to go back and explore further, particularly with advances in technology, knowledge etc... in the years since.

    Although, if the landing was a hoax, then wouldn't someone like Russia or China not come publically state that its impossible to land on the moon for whatever reason...


  • Options
    #55
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Septic Leper wrote: »
    their talking about going back in 2017 i think.They will defenitly be able to fake it properly this time;)

    RTE had a good documentary on why everyones so desperate to get back to the moon but they showed some good footage of the astronauts just messing about on the moon, falling over and saying stupid stuff. I'd never seen any of that before.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you not get perspective or something?
    Galaxy = very big approx. 100000 lightyears
    Moon lander = very small approx. 5 metres
    This should help clear things up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxI05inn_yU


  • Options
    #56
    ironclaw
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Tony Broke wrote: »
    I know that, my question is how do we have images like above and we cant see objects on the moon.

    It doesnt make sense to me.


    Focal lenght of the Hubble Telescope. It probably is designed to take a photo of something X thousand kilometres away. Would be a reasonable explanation IMO.

    Or as stated before, Large and far away, Small and close.. :)

    They landed there, theres no hard evidence to the contary.


  • Options
    #57
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    ScumLord wrote: »
    RTE had a good documentary on why everyones so desperate to get back to the moon but they showed some good footage of the astronauts just messing about on the moon, falling over and saying stupid stuff. I'd never seen any of that before.


    This should help clear things up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxI05inn_yU

    Damn, I was hoping from page 2 nobody beat me to it! :o

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #58
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    monkeytronics wrote: »
    I don't know much about the moon landing or the conspiracy theories surrounding same. But having read this thread I get the impression that the armstrong et al landing of the 60s has been the onlt time humans have visited the surface of the moon.

    If that is the case, why so? It seems odd that they could pull off this great achievement some 40 years ago but no one has bothered to go back and explore further, particularly with advances in technology, knowledge etc... in the years since.

    Although, if the landing was a hoax, then wouldn't someone like Russia or China not come publically state that its impossible to land on the moon for whatever reason...
    There were a few missions to the moon. Apollo 11 and 12 made it, 13 was the one that went wrong, and one or two more landed there. They then canned the Apollo missions cause of cost and not gaining much else from the venture at that time. Concentrated on the reusable shuttle then I suppose.
    They're planning on going back in 2020 according to a guy I spoke to in Nasa, but todays economic climate would want to have changed by then!! :D
    If they didn't make it to the Moon, Russia would have been the first to shout about it. After all, the skeptics know that the reason they apparently "faked it" was to beat the Russians to the moon. Russia would have known if they faked it.
    Also on the Hubble thing - why spend so much on a telescope to find the farthest reaches of space and then point it at the moon to see what they already know is there? In any case the skeptics wouldn't be convinced as the pics they might take would be "fakes" too!


  • Options
    #59
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Biro wrote: »
    They're planning on going back in 2020 according to a guy I spoke to in Nasa, but todays economic climate would want to have changed by then!!

    Hopefully if the Chinese make it, it'll pump some more of that cold war spirit into NASA and finally get them off their collective ass.


  • Options
    #60
    bustler99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭bustler99


    kilmeaden i think


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    bustler99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭bustler99


    kilmeaden i think
    AINCIENT KILMEADEN


Advertisement